1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
|
Return-Path: <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 57A48BBF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:46:17 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:08:39 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail.wpsoftware.net (wpsoftware.net [96.53.77.134])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD70F762
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:46:16 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from boulet.lan (boulot.lan [192.168.0.193])
by mail.wpsoftware.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 02827401A7;
Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:37:36 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:37:35 +0000
From: Andrew Poelstra <apoelstra@wpsoftware.net>
To: Tim Ruffing <crypto@timruffing.de>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20180812163734.GV499@boulet.lan>
References: <CAPg+sBj7f+=OYXuOMdNeJk3NBG67FSQSF8Xv3seFCvwxCWq69A@mail.gmail.com>
<2e620d305c86f65cbff44b5fba548dc85c118f84.camel@timruffing.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="hN1XGyM8GoU8K2XL"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2e620d305c86f65cbff44b5fba548dc85c118f84.camel@timruffing.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Schnorr signatures BIP
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2018 16:46:17 -0000
--hN1XGyM8GoU8K2XL
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I think it's just an oversight. We should specify that we use the standard
encoding from section 2.3 of http://www.secg.org/sec1-v2.pdf except that
we allow only compressed public keys.
Andrew
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 11:12:48PM +0200, Tim Ruffing via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Is it intentional that the encoding of public (and private) keys is
> unspecified? I'd consider at least the encoding of the public key to be
> part of the signature scheme, so ideally it should be specified already
> in this BIP. On the other hand, there may be good arguments against it,
> but I'm not aware of any.
>=20
> This issue leads to a discrepancy between the specification and the
> test vectors because the data fields of test vectors "are given as byte
> arrays", including public and secret key. As a consequence, even the
> Python reference implementation in the BIP draft doesn't work on test
> vectors (in a strict sense).
>=20
> Best,
> Tim
>=20
>=20
> On Fri, 2018-07-06 at 11:08 -0700, Pieter Wuille via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> > Hello everyone,
> >=20
> > Here is a proposed BIP for 64-byte elliptic curve Schnorr signatures,
> > over the same curve as is currently used in ECDSA:
> > https://github.com/sipa/bips/blob/bip-schnorr/bip-schnorr.mediawiki
> >=20
> > It is simply a draft specification of the signature scheme itself. It
> > does not concern consensus rules, aggregation, or any other
> > integration into Bitcoin - those things are left for other proposals,
> > which can refer to this scheme if desirable. Standardizing the
> > signature scheme is a first step towards that, and as it may be
> > useful
> > in other contexts to have a common Schnorr scheme available, it is
> > its
> > own informational BIP.
> >=20
> > If accepted, we'll work on more production-ready reference
> > implementations and tests.
> >=20
> > This is joint work with several people listed in the document.
> >=20
> > Cheers,
> >=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>=20
>=20
--=20
Andrew Poelstra
Mathematics Department, Blockstream
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web: https://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew
"A goose alone, I suppose, can know the loneliness of geese
who can never find their peace,
whether north or south or west or east"
--Joanna Newsom
--hN1XGyM8GoU8K2XL
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJbcGJMAAoJEMWI1jzkG5fBN0EH/3ZhMtDJfGlaymq3bhIh9dLV
fVKA3JAEAFkbHeRy1J4K65N56/XE1JlG/vZ6oeRG31CKvhv2XACKUiWO35JZE59u
Jj10bemRrm4GlVoQ30qmgGBQq+NMtGuZldHsth0TXfr7TQ9eid22ctrRqW7Aptli
qYcDBPIjYqxQQ27f5u15JaPo5Heho0NxIddq4+A9XSpaz+//K9/kY/KUh1iS2Z7U
srshevy0qvn/QwDRxPunpyMkik03y2oAr2dBD14d+x3r9GAqKCFl4NDzLKjqnw7T
WpNGDw5eton0Ny/KuGij1WXw92zKle1Wi4Cjcv3Unzs5I+L215U6E2MMDcuZuMM=
=7NC7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--hN1XGyM8GoU8K2XL--
|
